JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION: DE LA ESPRIELLAVELASCO -v- THE QUEEN [2006] WASCA 31
CORAM: ROBERTS-SMITH JA
PULLIN JA
MILLER AJA
HEARD: 15-17 AUGUST, 13-14 DECEMBER 2005
DELIVERED : 10 MARCH 2006
FILE NO/S: CCA 130 of 2003
CCA 146 of 2003
BETWEEN: FERNANDO DE LA ESPRIELLAVELASCO
Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram :MURRAY J
File No :INS 131 of 2002
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Defence of duress - Whether trial Judge should have put to jury - Disallowance of answer to question in re-examination relating to duress - Whether appropriate to disallow - Admissibility of conversation between accused and his wife at prison whilst wife assisting with translation of prosecution brief - Wife made available for this purpose at instruction of the Court - Whether conversation privileged
Criminal procedure - Whether admission of evidence unfair - Whether prosecution entitled to use evidence of conversation against accused in cross-examination - Failure to disclose before cross-examination - Whether splitting of case by prosecution - Jury permitted by Judge to take English translations of recorded conversations home overnight - Whether this occasioned miscarriage of justice
Criminal law and procedure - Interpreter - Whether standard of interpretation sufficient for fair trial of accused - Whether interpreter competent - Whether errors in interpretation denied accused a fair trial
Absence of the witness - Person charged, but discharged by Court of Petty Sessions at request of prosecution - Allowed to leave Australia - Whether prosecuting authorities had obligation to keep witness in the country
Criminal law and procedure - Fresh evidence - Statements of witnesses about violent events in Colombia after trial - Whether evidence admissible as relevant to question of duress
Criminal law - Sentence - Life imprisonment with non-parole period of 26 years - Whether non-parole period excessive - Parity with co-offenders - Role played by appellant
Legislation:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16G
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 30(4), s 39, s 40
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 10.2
Criminal Code, s 687(1), s 697
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 110
Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 133, s 134
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 30
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 427(7)
Result:
Appeal against conviction dismissed
Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted
Appeal against sentence dismissed
Category: A
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant: Mr T F Percy QC & Mr J A Davies
Respondent: Mr J V Agius QC & Mr D W L Renton
Solicitors:
Appellant: D G Price & Co
Respondent: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Adamopoulos v Olympic Airways SA (1991) 25 NSWLR 75
Anderson v The Queen (1996) 18 WAR 244
Beamish v The Queen [2005] WASCA 62
Bekink v The Queen (1999) 107 A Crim R 415
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read De La Espriella-Velasco v The Queen and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2006] WASCA 31
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the trial judge did not err in declining to put the defence of duress to the jury, as there was no credible evidence to support it. The appellant's claim of duress was based on hearsay and was not substantiated by any reliable witnesses or documentary evidence. The court also considered the admissibility of the conversation between the appellant and his wife, which took place while she was assisting with the translation of the prosecution brief. The court held that the conversation was not privileged and was appropriately admitted as evidence. The court further examined the competency of the interpreter used during the trial and concluded that, despite some errors in interpretation, the appellant did not suffer a miscarriage of justice due to the interpreter's performance.
In its reasoning, the court highlighted the importance of ensuring a fair trial, particularly when the accused's language proficiency is limited. The court emphasised that while there were some deficiencies in the interpretation, they did not reach the threshold of depriving the appellant of a fair trial. The court also found that the prosecution's failure to disclose certain evidence before cross-examination did not result in a miscarriage of justice. Regarding the non-parole period, the court considered the appellant's role in the crime and the need for general deterrence and denunciation before upholding the sentence.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence, affirming the trial judge's decision on all grounds of appeal. The court upheld the conviction and sentence, emphasising the importance of a fair trial and the need for adequate interpretation services. The court's decision underscored the significance of ensuring that all parties have a fair opportunity to present their case, particularly in light of the appellant's language barriers.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
The way in which an appellant may demonstrate incompetent or deficient interpretation, and the extent of departure from what is a necessary standard of interpretation, were aspects which fell for consideration by Kenny J in the context of an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal in Perera v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1999) 92 FCR 6. The applicant gave evidence before the Tribunal in Sinhalese, by means of an interpreter. His migration agent subsequently made written submission noting there was no NAATI accreditation for Sinhalese interpreters and that the interpreter had become confused on a number of occasions at the hearing and that needed to be taken into account in assessing the evidence and the credibility of the applicant. In its determination, the Tribunal noted that neither the adviser nor the applicant made any comments about the interpreter during the hearing and that the claim had been made only afterwards. The Tribunal did not accept that the interpreter did not competently interpret the material presented by the applicant. One of the grounds of appeal in the Federal Court was that the Tribunal erred in law in failing to provide "adequate or proper interpreter services". Counsel for the applicant relied upon the transcript of the Tribunal hearing to support a submission that the interpretation was incompetent. The argument was founded primarily on s 427(7) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which specifically provides that where a person appearing before the Tribunal to give evidence is not proficient in English, the Tribunal may direct that communication with them proceed through an interpreter. Kenny J was prepared to accept that the absence of an interpreter for an applicant who required one, would mean the Tribunal had no jurisdiction. Her Honour began her consideration by summarising the effect of the authorities (at [18] ‑ [19]):"18In criminal trials, there is a rule that an accused must be physically present in court. The rule, it is said, is intended to ensure that the accused is able to hear the case against him and to have an opportunity to answer it. The same rationale is said to inform the approach taken in the criminal courts with respect to the use of interpreters. In the case of an accused who is not sufficiently proficient in English to understand the proceedings or to make himself understood, the trial judge must, as part of his duty to ensure a fair trial, see to it that the accused receives the assistance of a competent interpreter: Dietrich v R (1992) 177 CLR 292 at 331 per Deane J; R v Saraya (1993) 70 A Crim R 515 at 516 per Badgery-Parker J (with whom Kirby ACJ and Loveday AJ agreed); R v Johnson (1987) 25 A Crim R 433 at 435 per Shepherdson J and 442-443 per Derrington J; R v Lee Kun [1916] 1 KB 337 at 341–343 per Lord Reading CJ; Kunnath v State [1993] 1 WLR 1315 at 1319–1321 (PC); R v Begum (1985) 93 Cr App R 96 at 100–101; R v Tran [1994] 2 SCR 951 at 963 and United States ex rel Negron v New York (2nd Cir 1970) 434 F 2d 386.19For similar reasons, there may be a need for the services of an interpreter in a civil proceeding: cf Gradidge v Grace Bros Pty Ltd (1988) 93 FLR 414 at 423–424 per Kirby P, 425 per Samuels JA and 427 per Clarke JA and Adamopoulos v Olympic Airways SA (1991) 25 NSWLR 75 at 81 per Mahoney JA."